CC - Survey data about RR
Last week, there was a thread about an alleged “MGoBubble” (thread ref)- and that led to a side discussion about the perceived level of support for Rich Rodriguez among various groups of people. In my quest to find some real data (rather than forum posts or polls on Detnews), I came across an organization called Public Policy Polling that conducts state-level polls about voter perceptions of political candidates. In May of 2010, they included questions about Rich Rodriguez for their Michigan poll. They repeated those questions in their Michigan poll this past week. The results, both from May and from December, are very interesting and may be surprising to some.
First of all, the usual caveats:
- I am not affiliated in any way with Public Policy Polling (site)
- I am not advocating one way or another anything about “CC” - I am trying to bring some accurate data (and new information) into the discussion
- The survey does not go very deep - it simply asks some basic questions about favorable or unfavorable opinions about RR, and about allowing RR to continue or having him replaced
- The survey does not claim to be representative of any particular subgroup other than the categories it specifically asks about. In other words, this poll is not representative of the UofM student body, nor of alumni. nor of former players, etc. It is representative of registered voters in Michigan who identify themselves as UofM fans, and of those fans as broken down by political ideology, party affiliation, age, ethnicity, and gender.
- The May Michigan survey was conducted May 25-27, polled 890 people, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.3% (source)
- The December Michigan survey was conducted December 3-6, polled 1224 people, and has a margin of error of +/- 2.8% (source)
- One of the questions specifically asks whether the respondent is a fan of UofM, MSU, or neither. The questions about RR were only asked to those who identified themselves as UofM fans. This also means that the margin of error for questions about RR is higher, because the sample size is smaller.
May 2010 Results
First of all, let’s look at the May results, after a 3-9 and 5-7 season, and concurrent with the announcement by Michigan of the self-imposed penalties for the NCAA violations (UofM announced those penalties on May 25).
1. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Rich Rodriguez? Based on the May results, it appears that there is a small group of people (20%) who had a favorable view of RR, and a slightly larger but still fairly small group of people (26%) who had an unfavorable view of RR. The majority (54%) were unsure.
The polling organization noted that this is a low favorable rating for one’s own coach. They compared it to the favorable rating that North Carolina fans have for their arch-rival Duke’s basketball coach (46%). For RR to have such a low favorable rating from his own fan base is “exceptionally bad,” according to the polling organization. (source)
2. Would you like to see Rich Rodriguez continue to be Michigan’s football coach this season or would you like to see him replaced? This is a very interesting result - a majority (51%) of people wanted RR to continue for the 2010 season, which implies that a majority of Michigan fans who were “Not sure” of their opinion on RR still wanted him to be the coach. In fact, there was a smaller percentage of fans who wanted him replaced (20%) than who had an unfavorable opinion of him (26%), which implies that even some of his detractors either wanted him to continue as coach this year or were unsure.
May subgroups
Digging a little bit deeper, although this poll doesn’t say anything specifically about UofM students, alumni, current players, or former players, it is possible to address whether age has anything to do with one’s positions on RR. A claim that I have heard on this blog is that RR’s detractors are probably older fans who are more comfortable with traditional power football, and not inclined to support a coach who brings a modern offensive philosophy to the table. In fact, this data appears to show just the opposite - the older the fan, the stronger the support for RR in May. It is the group of fans in the youngest category (18-29) who are the most polarized and who have the strongest negative views on RR.
Why is that? One possible explanation is that the idea of keeping something the same or making a change may be related to one’s political ideology - and that as of May 2010, having RR as the coach was already seen as the status quo. Assuming (the polling organization didn’t publish this specific data) that older fans tend to be conservative, and further assuming that conservatives prefer to keep the status quo, that might partially explain why older fans preferred to keep RR as coach back in May. In that sense, one could argue (although the data doesn’t necessarily say this) that RR was already accepted by those older fans as “a Michigan man” in the sense that his status as football coach was seen as the status quo.
One final interesting result from the May survey. There does appear to be a significant divide in support for RR based on ethnicity. The polling organization didn’t put forward any possible explanation for this ethnicity gap, and I honestly can’t come up with a rationale myself. It is what it is.
December results
A lot has happened in Michigan since May, both in football and in politics. Michigan elected a Republican governor by a large majority, and the UofM football team experienced a winning season under Coach Rodriguez, but suffered double-digit losses to MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, and OSU.
So how did the events of the past 6 months affect RR’s favorable rating among UofM fans?
There remains a small core of people (20%, just as in May) who continue to have a favorable opinion of RR, while the group that has an unfavorable opinion has increased (from 26% in May to 38% in December), apparently almost completely from the “Not sure” camp in May (down from 54% in May to 42% in December). The surprising result, for me, is that the largest group (42%) is still “Not sure” about their opinion of RR.
Given that many “Not sure” fans in May still wanted RR to continue, and even some of the fans who viewed RR unfavorably in May didn't necessarily want him replaced, do fans want RR to continue as they look forward to 2011?
Again, there has been a shift in opinion away from a majority of people who wanted RR to continue back in May, to a statistically even split among those who want him to continue (32%), those who want him replaced (35%), and those who are unsure (33%). As in May, there may be some people who have an unfavorable view of RR but do not necessarily want him replaced (38% v. 35%).
Attempting to tease out where those unsure of their opinion of RR stand with respect to having him keep his job, I made a couple of admittedly invalid assumptions:
- All those who want RR to continue have a favorable opinion of him
- The difference between the larger group of those who want RR to continue v. the smaller group of those who have a favorable opinion of him consist completely of those who are unsure of their opinion of him. In other words, if 20% have a favorable opinion, but 32% want him to continue being the coach, that extra 12% of people who want to keep RR is coming from those who are unsure of their opinion of him.
Not sure of their opinion of RR but want him to continue
Again, this is probably a stretch in terms of interpreting the published data, but it appears that RR’s support for keeping his job among “neutral” UofM fans has eroded significantly.
December subgroups
Digging a little deeper, the May results suggested that the youngest fans (18-29) were the most strongly divided and had the highest percentage of people wanting to replace RR. By contrast, the oldest fans (65+) wanted to keep RR back in May, by a large margin. Has this age profile of support for RR changed in December?
This is a significant change. Not only has RR’s overall support eroded, his support among the “blue hairs” has completely flipped, where more of the oldest respondents (65+) want him replaced than want to keep him.
Respondents age 65+
What about the youngest respondents, who were the most divided back in May? It appears that they are now very unsure of whether they want RR to continue being Michigan's coach.
Respondents age 18-29
What about political ideology? Do even conservative fans, who theoretically would prefer to keep the status quo, still want to keep RR in his position?
Again, this shows almost a complete inversion of the results in May. Back in May, liberals tended to want to replace RR while conservatives tended to want to keep him; now in December, it’s the opposite.
And for the sake of completion, do we still see a dramatic gap in support for RR based on ethnicity?
Although there is still an ethnicity gap, it has narrowed significantly to the point where it appears that one either wants RR to continue, to be replaced, or is unsure - regardless of one’s ethnicity.
Finally, one additional question was asked in the December poll, about who the respondents would like to see as a replacement. No surprise about who leads the pack, but I should point out that Brady Hoke is running a distant third, behind even an “unnamed” candidate.
Conclusions
I’ll be the first to say that it is dangerous, even maliciously deceptive, to extrapolate into the future using data that is not intended to be used that way. So I believe it would be inappropriate to say anything like, “if current trends continue...”, or “another season like this one would probably result in favorable ratings of...”, or “if we lose to MSU and OSU again next year, the percentage of fans who would want to keep RR would probably be...” The data makes no claim to predict the future - it is simply 2 snapshots in time that reveal how opinions have changed since May.
I hope this diary qualifies as “bringing new information” to the table, and also brings forward some reasonably accurate opinion survey data that we can talk about, rather than statements made in a vacuum claiming that “98% of former M football players still alive despise RR” or the idea that “players that played 40-70 years ago...are not a fan of the spread offense...” (thread ref)
December 10th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
I'm back again . . .
Do you think that if they retain Rodriguez that it will be on a year-to-year basis? I don't really know anything about Brandon (other than the public information - all the rest is just speculation), but I have to believe that if he's putting in the time now he will do whatever possible avoid having to do it again this time next year. Don't you think the decision now will be one that affects the next 3-4 years (i.e. Rodriguez is here another 3-4 years or gone now)? I cannot take going through this again next year. (Of course, if Rodriguez is here next year he could avoid this by winning more than 7-8 games?)
December 10th, 2010 at 3:17 PM ^
Welcome back, my friend. If they retain RR, I fully expect the current fractured community to get even worse. Whether RR gets an extension (that'll go over well) or just a "he's the coach" commitment, it will, in practice, be on a year-to-year deal. The same talk will exist next year. The same negative recruiting. The same split Michigan family.
If (again, huge "if") Brandon lets RR stay, the only thing that could be done to avoid a repeat of this mess would be for RR to win. Beat his rivals. Compete for a conference championship. Not get blown out by anyone (let alone our rivals). Field a solid defense. Field a solid special teams unit. Assemble a top-10 recruiting class. There's nothing Brandon can do. It'd be all on RR - thus, a year-to-year basis.
December 10th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
Whatever the decision is, I just want closure. And if it means that the fan base stays polarized if Rodriguez stays, I would almost rather they cut him loose. Its not fair to him and, more importantly, to his family. Maybe being a new-ish father has changed how I think about things, but I think all this talk about Rodriguez being fired is very unfair and unkind to his family. If I can't take another year of it, I can't imagine what his family must be thinking.
December 10th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
What would Bo do if it was his decision to retain RR for another season? When Moeller was fired from the head coaching position at Illinois after THREE seasons his record was 6-24-3 . Bo however believed that Moeller deserved more time to be successfull and was fired prematurely because he wasn't able to coach his initial recruits through their senior season. So another question is was Bo wrong about this?
December 10th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
This notion that Bo would back RR is all conjecture. This is a unique situation to Michigan and if he were alive today it is ludicrous to act as though you know how he would approach it. I will say this though, things would be more clear cut if he were AD at this point in time.
December 10th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
I didn't say or act like I knew what Bo would do. I ASKED a question or two what he would do. I mentioned Moeller's record because in three years at Illinois he had a very poor winning percentage (6-24-3) yet Bo thought Illinois let him go too early. Don't see what is so unique in this situation as others.
December 10th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
Michigan is not Illinois. The winningest program in the game is not an historically weak program like Illinois. Let's dig deeper into your reach though...
In the decade prior to Mo, Illinois had only two winning seasons (the best being 5-3). Mo was terrible there and deserved to be fired (as he was) in 1979. In 1981, he became the QB coach for UofM. Did any college in the nation think he deserved hiring as a head coach? Seems not. He wasn't ready to become a head coach until 1990. Sometimes, coaches deserve to be fired even if they later become good coaches. Mo was one such coach.
If you want to ask a "what would Bo think" hypothetical...maybe ask, "What would Bo think about a Michigan coach who loses by 30 to Ohio State, gets doubled-up by MSU, puts the blame on his players and says, '...at least we're fun to watch'?"
It's pretty amazing the way folks will grasp at straws (and ghosts) to defend RR.
December 11th, 2010 at 7:50 AM ^
But I will never consider looking at the actions and beliefs of the people who built this program as "grasping at straws" to determine what the best approach should be in this situation. Too often (not so much on this site as others) our history and tradition is ignored in these conversations.
I know Bo HATED Illinois after this happened. This is when Bo said "there are only a handful of teams were 100 points isn't enough, and Illinois is ten of those teams." As I remember it being presented in the History of College Sports (]V[ class taught by Bacon), Bo explicitly said that 3 years isn't enough to install your program anywhere.
And, if we want to bring Bo into this, I think what he would hate most is the divided fan base and occasional lack of institutional support from a divided AD. My $.02.
December 11th, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^
The "grasping at straws" was done by BLUEFBFAN in arguing that Bo might want RR to stay based on Bo's feelings about Mo. We don't want to bring Bo into this, but "WWBD" was brought in by BLUEFBFAN. No one can answer WWBD and that's why it's grasping at straws (especially when talking about "3 years isn't enough time to build a system" when there is more than one side of the ball). The bottom line is that RR has his own track record upon which he will be judged.
December 11th, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^
Yes no one can answer for sure WWBD. It's been documented though,that is what he believed and three years is not enough time. RR track record by the way is that he has turned around every program where he was a head coach.
December 11th, 2010 at 9:14 PM ^
Yes, RR has turned around teams, but he hasn't dealt with Big Ten competition. We beat the Big East champion this year. So what? They're terrible. We are unable to run with better competition despite RR's ability to beat the best team in the conference from whence he came. He will be judged from his track record here, where it takes a bit more than in the Big East (or whatever conference Tulane is in).
December 14th, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
to install a new type of defense, so it stands to reason that he would likely give more than three for rebuilding an entire program.
December 12th, 2010 at 8:20 AM ^
BLUEBFAN cited historical examples from out history to try to build a case for how celebrated Michigan Men of the past would react to the current situation.
I find absolutely nothing wrong with objecting to his conclusion. But "Grasping at straws to defend RR" is a stretch - he is recollecting decisions and actions of the past that made us who we are today.
How could considering the actions of past Michigan Men ever be reprimanded? No shit he can't come out and say exactly what Bo would say today, but as affiliates of this University, we can have academic discussions on how his past actions can clue us into how he would feel today.
December 11th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
Just pointing out facts and data. The fact that Illinois was a losing program before he arrived makes my point even more that Bo was right and that Moeller should have been given another year since it was a harder program to turn around. Here is some more data. Duke head coach Mike K's record his first three years at Duke was a stellar 38-47. By your standard he should have been fired right? Here merely went on after that to win 4 national championships. Hmmm. What's up with that? Duke's record before coach K the three season's prior to his arrival was 73-24. So coach K took a highly successfull and winning program and took it to mediocrity in his first three years, but was still given more time and the next season turned his program into a continual winner.
December 11th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^
Here's another one to look at. Kirk Ferentz's first three years at Iowa was 1-10,3-9,and 7-5. He has been considered by most as an excellent coach at Iowa. Should he have been fired after those three seasons?If so Iowa might not have went 11-2 in his fourth season and woudn't have compiled a 88-57 record.
December 11th, 2010 at 9:12 PM ^
In his three years at Michigan, RR has compiled enough facts and data for his boss to make a decision on firing/retaining him without attempting to decipher the opinion of those who are no longer of this earth. We all love Bo, but Bo also loved defense.
You can point to basketball coaches, Iowa coaches, Illinois coaches in the 1970's, but despite your attempts to state otherwise, there is not a "win-loss" number that keeps or fires a coach. There is no set number of years that a coach gets to prove his worth. RR has a track record at Michigan from which he'll be judged.
December 11th, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^
So Bo must have been wrong according to you. If there isn't a set number of years like four that Bo said it takes to judge a coach than It will be based on three years instead by your standard.
December 11th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
Did you just read what I wrote? There is no set number of years to keep/fire a coach. That is my standard.
December 12th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
Yes I read your comment. Did you read mine? I said Bo thought it took 4 years to "JUDGE " a coach on his program.
December 10th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
Thanks a ton for this diary. It's really helpful, and somewhat surprising, too.
December 11th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
the only problem is that if the poll wasn't done in a completely random basis, then the data is going to be skewed. Voluntary polls become skewed because those that are willing to particate in a poll generally have the strongest opinions about the subject matter.
December 11th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
Based on the wording of some of the questions (if you are woman, press 1, etc.), and the fact that their primary focus is political polling, I assume that this was a randomly selected telephone poll. Although people can decline to answer a poll (and that could, in theory, skew the results), it's much better than a web-based poll on a newspaper website or ESPN or something like that.
December 11th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
Many people aren't sure so Brandon could sway them with whatever decision he makes it seems
December 12th, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
Once we know for certain whom will be the football coach and staff for 2011, then we all need to go on record as to whether we think it was a good move or not. Only data we will have will be what happens next, and the woulda, coulda, shoulda kept or fired or done whatever will be lost to the land of never was and never will be.
Bluntly speaking, 2008's 3-9 and 2009's 5-7 were the price we paid because Martin and Coleman decided to blow up the entire previous coaching staff. Whether we should have done that or not, that remains a moot point because we did it.
We are about to embark on another one of those kind of moves, and we really will not know what the real outcome will be for another couple of years. Fuzzy thing is the future....
To quote my favorite philsopher, Master Yoda......
“The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see the future is.”
December 13th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
Not to quibble, but this is inaccurate:
2008's 3-9 and 2009's 5-7 were the price we paid because Martin and Coleman decided to blow up the entire previous coaching staff
They hired RR, but it was RR who chose to blow up the entire coaching staff.
December 14th, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
If you think that RR's plans in terms of retaining the current coaching staff was a big surprise to Martin and Coleman after he was hired, then you are deluded. That was certainly a major part of the decision to offer the job to Rodriguez and fully sanctioned by both after lengthy discussions.
There is no possible way they interviewed him and did not have a clear idea of his plans to bring his own staff before they offered him the job, nor would they have any expectation that he would bring a major portion of his staff with him and continue to run run the same schemes. Certainly they are not football experts and this wouldn't be immediately apparent to either, but they were also most certainly under advisement people that are experts and would understand completely what hiring a ciach and his staff with an entirely different scheme would mean.
December 14th, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
Do you ever get tired of reaching to defend anything...anything that could possibly been seen as a negative about RR? The poster said that Coleman and Martin decided to blow up the previous coaching staff. That is not correct. They hired RR and he blew it up. Should that have been a surprise? Does that matter? RR pulled that trigger on all of the assistants (except for one on offense and Singletary). That's just the fact of the matter.
You go on to mention the "entirely different scheme"...which really only existed on offense...and that's the side of the ball where he actually kept a coach. So, to recap, the coach was hired and the coach (not the University President) chose his assistants. Is Coleman to blame for the 3-3-5 as well? Choose your battles more wisely. This one isn't winnable (or worth it).
December 15th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
reaching and finding any and every opportunity to slam RR, or at least if and when you finally reveal what your little axe to grind or agenda is actually based on. The funny part is, I only seem so everpresent to you, because you are so constant in what you do.
Oh and obviously, certainly not a reach. If you think they made a job offer to RR and then said, 'Hey, get back to us when you can about everyone on staff and what you want to do with them', well, that pretty much says it all about about how your knowledge of how things work.
And, FWIW, I see plenty of negative things about RR, so your attempt to cast me as an extemist who belittles any criticism of RR is off base. He is not perfect. Obviously things on the defensive side of the ball aren't great, I think tossing Schafer as a sacrificial lamb was a mistake and I don't think GERG was a great hire to replace him. Now, best case scenario with either coach or whatever hot DC you could have brought in, given the injuries and depth issues, the very best you could expect from anybody is a middling-to-poor defense, we got a little worse than poor. I think he should have fought back at the PR blitz when he left WVU and openly discussed the reasons he was leaving rather than just sit and take it from an administration the effed up in not coming through on their promises. Plenty of other things that might have gone better, but he is rebuilding a program and that takes time.
You, however, can see no good, no progress and wish to lay every last bit of culpability for quite literally at RR's feet with no exceptions. That isn't open-minded discussion, that is someone with an agenda that is furthering that agenda at every opportunity.
The bottom line is that everything is a shade of gray and while I can see some things RR has done that aren't perfect or wrong, while still seeing the potential for the future, you have some form of agenda that causes you to see only black. Plain and simple.
What is really unfortunate is that you represent a segment of the fan base that really has lost sight of what is is important and really care about nothing beyond the number of W's you get. Michigan footbal has always been been about much more than W's and you and those of your ilk push us ever closer to becoming nothing more than another factory, SEC-type program that will do anything to win. If you can't see the quality young men that remain on that team, their character and poise in the face of fans like you, the coaching staff that keeps their heads on straight and keeps them playing with heart and poise despite the scoreboard or thre booing fans, then you are missing everything that is really important about Michigan football and you don't even know it.....all to chase a few more Ws a few months earlier (which in fact, you will not get if you change coaches when you are this far into rebuilding the program).
The bottom line, and it has been true since day 1 of his hire, is that RR is not acceptable to you for some undisclosed reason and you have never and will never cut him any slack. you haven't ever looked at this with an open mind and you know it.
December 15th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
...The bottom line, and it has been true since day 1 of his hire, is that RR is not acceptable to you for some undisclosed reason...
Setting aside the personal bias of any one particular person, I just wanted to point out that this is not true for most fans according to these surveys:
- As recently as May, only 1 in 4 had an unfavorable view of RR (26%)
- The "bluehair" fans supported RR more strongly in May than younger fans (65% of fans 65+ wanted RR to continue v. 35% of fans 18-29)
- In December, the largest group of fans is still unsure of how they view RR (42%)
- Fans 18-29 have actually become more uncertain of what they want in December (75% unsure in December v. 26% in May)
Having said that, there has definitely been a shift in overall fan sentiment away from RR from May to December. We can speculate that those fans are uneducated, that their expectations are unreasonable, that they do not see what is happening off the field, they fail to recognize the nuances of improvement in terms of offense v. defense, they are only casual fans, whatever. But all of that is speculation.
Given the actual data from this survey, and in my opinion, it is false to attribute the vast majority of fans' discontent with RR to the idea that he was never acceptable to those fans to begin with. The May survey says otherwise. Again, that kind of bias may be true for an individual person, but it is not true (in my interpretation of this data) of most fans.
December 15th, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
That's good info. Beyond that, let's remember that RR was hired long before May. As I point out to my stalker above, I supported RR when he was hired. I supported him and thought he would get it done...until the Illinois loss last year. That's hardly "day 1". Some folks just can't bear the thought that RR's track record is the reason that many people would like to see him fired. It took more than 1 day to build such a record.
December 15th, 2010 at 7:29 PM ^
I'm referring specifically to the segment that was against RR from day one, not the May to December shift. It stands to reason the the overall opinion of the entire fanbase would be less favorable and more unsure after the OSU beatdown and a season that perhaps didn't meet up to the expectations of some fans (although by most reasonable pre-season measures the season was right on on target).
December 15th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
I'm wondering if you teared up when you wrote that? Were you listening to Josh Grobin (or whatever the hell his name is)? You make many wildly inaccurate statements, so I'll tackle a few and let you return to your RR shrine...
If you think they made a job offer to RR and then said, 'Hey, get back to us when you can about everyone on staff and what you want to do with them', well, that pretty much says it all about about how your knowledge of how things work.
-Why do you care so much that RR gets the blame/credit for his assistant coaching hires? As for my knowledge of how things work...it's really solid, especially considering that I know multiple Big Ten assistant coaches who survived coaching changes. RR (not Coleman) chose his staff. Get over it. Scapegoating is for the weak.
...the very best you could expect from anybody is a middling-to-poor defense, we got a little worse than poor.
So our defense was "a little worse than poor"? No. It was historically terrible. Next...
Michigan footbal (sic) has always been been about much more than W's...
That's true. Michigan football might not always put out a perfect record, but we must always be competitive against solid competition. Under RR, we have not beaten a team with a winning Big Ten record. This year, we got trounced by our rivals. We are hardly playing Illinois football.
If you can't see the quality young men that remain on that team...
And when did I insult the players? Never. The coaches are responsible for the state of the program - good or bad. This "remember the children" refrain is tired. Frankly, if you stalked me better, you'd know that I've pointed out some "great" things that RR (not just the players) has done.
The bottom line, and it has been true since day 1 of his hire, is that RR is not acceptable to you for some undisclosed reason and you have never and will never cut him any slack. you haven't ever looked at this with an open mind and you know it.
Bad stalker! Bad! Bad! You don't know me. The only way you'd know what I thought would be to have read my posts - all of them. If you stalked better, you'd know that I supported the RR hire until (roughly) the Illinois loss last year. I then gave him the benefit of the doubt going into this season, hoping I was wrong about his potential. Unfortunately, I was right. Don't attack the messenger. I didn't go 0-6 to OSU and MSU. My team hasn't lost every game they've played against a winning Big Ten team. I didn't field a terrible defense. I didn't say, "At least we're fun to watch". Get out of the MGoBubble. The real world is full of data that you might find interesting.
December 15th, 2010 at 7:57 PM ^
Your self-importance really knows no bounds...slow golf clap to you.....and a biiiig yawn. I read this site thoroughly and certainly do not go out of my way to 'stalk' you, though I am sure you like to think so. To be honest, if I could avoid you, I would, but the sheer volume of your inane posts and 'me too's' in every CC post out there, you are sadly an unavoidable fact of life on this board.
Not going to get into a big drawn out point-for-point, spittle flecked argument with you where nothing changes, to be quite frank, you simply aren't worth the time. If I were allowed to give you a new username for MGoblog, it would be 'Anti-RR TarBaby'. Having played the part of Br'er Wolverine to your tarbaby in the past, I'm going to wise up and just walk on by.
So, you are saying that before the Illinois game you were firmly in RR's camp and a few weeks later you wrote this in a thread titled 'When Can We Fire This Coach'.
All of the "have patience" comments baffle me. Are we not Michigan? Does it not bother people that we are having the worst two seasons in our history? I am not ok with our record. I am not ok with the way we are losing. I do not blame Carr for the "cupboard being bare". I did not expect a title in two years, but losing to Purdue at home, getting crushed by Illinois, losing to State, Neil Diamond (and crappy techno music) being piped-in to Michigan Stadium, high school-sized players. It's all wrong. None of it is Michigan.
I don't believe RR needs another year to prove anything. He's proven that he doesn't understand the greatest program in the history of the game.
Riiiight. So right after the Illinois game you suddenly decided that RR was the devil incarnate. That's BS, I highly doubt that a few weeks before that you were on the other side of the fence, but saying otherwise is completely consistent with your nature in trying to portray yourself as even remotely reasonable. While many on here have legitimate and reasoned opinions that RR should no longer be the coach at Michigan, you are not one of them. You are and have been the poster child for the 'Unacceptable!' opinion and meme. You and I both know you have some kind of agenda here against RR and to anyone that is familiar with your posts over time that is painfully clear. I certainly hope that if JH is the next M coach that you apply the same criteria to him that you have RR, though I doubt in the extreme that you will.
In other threads, you indicate that this is 'fun' for you, well it isn't for me. So go keep screeching and spewing forth your stuff, I will chime in when and how I feel like it, you have so many other people to nit-pick with that I am sure I will hardly be missed.
December 15th, 2010 at 8:35 PM ^
Nice research, stalker. Unfortunately, it proves my point...not yours...as the post you found came after the time when I said I gave up on RR.
But why continue to make things up (or care about me at all)? Did I say RR is "the devil incarnate"? Nope (you'll even find that I note the "great" things he's done at Michigan (in a thread you didn't quote). I don't list facts? You mean like RR losing 32% of defensive commits while coaching at Michigan? Like RR not beating a single Big Ten team with a winning conference record? Like going 0-6 against our main rivals? Like the defense landing around 102 in the nation It's ok to stalk, but don't be so selective. I have no personal beef with RR. I just think he's not capable of taking Michigan to the heights for which he was hired. I think that was evident early on. If Harbaugh comes in and shows himself incapable of competing with upper level talent, I'll hold his feet to the fire just the same.
By the way, don't call me (or anyone) "tar baby". Whether you meant to sound literary or racist, it's not a road to go down.
December 15th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
It seems as though you choose to pick fights with everyone who disagrees with you on this board. Unfortunately, you have replied with ZERO valid points.
FYI: BIG TEN FOOTBALL IS OVERRATED!..........Compare how many NATIONAL TITILES we have compared to the other major conferences over the past 20yrs. It's embarrasing! Big Ten Football is, and has been behind the curve for a while.......the spread is the future. What offense does Auburn and Oregon run????Oh yeah, the spread!
I love UofM, but how many national titles do we have in the past 60yrs???? Oh, 1! Michigan State has more than us!! Does it really make sense to go back to our old ways? I say absolutely not! Unfortunately, for everyone.......change like we have experienced takes time.
December 15th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
I love you too.
Thanks for the insulting, nonsensical post. No one was talking about "the spread" or "national titles". It was just whether the coach or University President fired/hired the assistant coaches. All the best.
December 13th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
What is the reasoning with letting RR go at this juncture to replace with JH? JH has neither been an offensive or defensive coordinator. JH was an offensive player in college and pros(qb) RR was a defensive player in college(db). The area of major concern is the defense. To assume that JH knows more about defense and how to correct it that RR is unfounded. If a HC change is made it will be made because of the defense but will also end up changing an offense that will only get better next year and will be on par with the best next year .
Comments